A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented: 

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what they’re thinking.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the messages and the minds effecting local voters.

John Traver, of the Albuquerque Journal in New Mexico has one take on Obama and his perceived ego:

John Darkow, of the Columbia Daily Tribune in Missouri has quite a different take of McCain, Obama and an Iraqi withdrawal:

Mike Lester, of the Rome News-Tribune in Rome, Georgia has an interesting take on Obama and the Media:

\

Nate Beeler, of The Washington Examiner, in D.C. also looks at the media and Obama:

Scott Stantis, of the Birmingham News in Alabama takes a critical look at Obama’s move to the center: Read more

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATED: A Note On Obama’s Management Of Press During Trip To Middle East

For the past few weeks, especially in our podcasts, I have been criticizing the Obama Campaign for isolating Obama from press.  I realize the political reasons for doing so.  I understand that it is smart politics.  I understand that this is a campaign, and therefore political considerations are often paramount.  I am also not suggesting that Obama’s handling of the press is or should be a reason not to vote for him.  I am simply pointing out an issue that I believe is worthy of criticism.  That said, on Hardball yesterday, Andrea Mitchell offered an example of and criticized the Obama campaign for its intense management of the press during his trip abroad.  Video here.  Transcript:

MITCHELL: But let me just say something about the message management.

He didn‘t have reporters with him. He didn‘t have a press pool. He didn‘t do a press conference while he was on the ground in either Afghanistan or Iraq. What you‘re seeing is not reporters brought in. You‘re seeing selected pictures taken by the military, questions by the military, and what some would call fake interviews, because they‘re not interviews from a journalist.

So, there‘s a real press issue here. Politically, it‘s smart as can be. But we have not seen a presidential candidate do this, in my recollection, ever before.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about access to the troops, Andrea.

A lot of African-American faces over there, very happy, delighted faces. Is that a representation of the percentage of service people who are African-American, or did all they choose to join somebody they like, apparently? What‘s the story?

MITCHELL: I can‘t really say that. Being a reporter who was not present in any of those situations…

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: … I just can‘t report on what was edited out, what was, you know, on the sidelines.

That‘s my—that‘s my issue.

MATTHEWS: Yes.

MITCHELL: We don‘t know what we are seeing.

I have great respect for the military, of what they do best, which is to fight war, keep the peace, do all sorts of economic and civil reconstruction here in Iraq. I don‘t think journalism is the prime thing that we recruit them and pay them for.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, do you think that the military‘s been too positive towards the Barack trip, Andrea?

MITCHELL: They have so—they have tried so hard to be balanced.

In fact, they keep emphasizing this is not his congressional delegation, not his co-del, to use the slang. It is Jack Reed‘s. Jack Reed is the senior senator on this trip.

Putting politics aside for a moment, for someone that is running for president, as voters we should demand more interaction between Obama and the press.

On a somewhat related note, Michael Grunwald concludes his most recent Time article by observing:

That doesn’t mean that anything’s probable. The media will try to preserve the illusion of a toss-up; you’ll keep seeing “Obama Leads, But Voters Have Concerns” headlines. But when Democrats are winning blood-red congressional districts in Mississippi and Louisiana, when the Republican president is down to 28 percent, when the economy is tanking and world affairs keep breaking Obama’s way, it shouldn’t be heresy to recognize that McCain needs an improbable series of breaks. Analysts get paid to analyze, and cable news has airtime to fill, so pundits have an incentive to make politics seem complicated. In the end, though, it’s usually pretty simple. Everyone seems to agree that 2008 is a change election. Which of these guys looks like change?

I don’t want to overstate my case here, because there is certainly no question that Obama’s policy positions present significantly broader change from Bush’s than McCain’s do; however, one thing that is certainly business as usual is strong line that Obama is drawing between himself and the press.  As president, I can understand limiting access quite a bit.  But as a candidate?  I’m just not sure a candidate has earned that right or has a legitimate reason to isolate himself the way that Obama has.

Is this a major voting issue? No.  But is it a point worthy of criticism?  You bet.  Demand more.  And once you get that, demand more.  Voters can make our leaders better by doing just that.

*UPDATE* The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman has a piece up, which criticizes the campaign for retribution (or what seems like retribution) against reporters they become furious with and the potential consequences of this.

Sphere: Related Content

An Example Of MoveOn’s Practice Of Intellectual Dishonesty

Slate’s Chris Beam notes an interesting exchange between former Obama advisor Samantha Power and MoveOn.org’s Tod Matzzie on the subject of withdrawal from Iraq.  Matzzie’s approach fires me up for several reasons as I will explain below.  First, the context:

During her presentation, Power had spoken about the need to acknowledge that withdrawal could get ugly. Tom Matzzie, Washington director for MoveOn.org, objected to her “framing.” Here’s the whole exchange (cleaned up a bit for readability):

Tom Matzzie: The question is really about framing, and about building the story about what withdrawal means. The human consequences are something you have to consider, but we can’t help the right build the frame that disengagement is going to have negative humanitarian consequences. … The war’s already a tragedy, you know? That’s why you don’t want to get into them, they’re tragedies. So I’d be interested about how you can revise your language to help not build that right-wing frame. …

Samantha Power: I don’t feel inclined to revise my frame out of deference to this manifestly moribund discourse that the administration and its supporters inflicted upon us in the course of the last few years.

By avoiding addressing John McCain’s apocalyptic claims about what will follow a U.S. withdrawal, we have allowed his claims to hang above the Iraq debate. When he says, as he said last year, that when we leave Iraq it’s going to make Srebrenica and Rwanda look like a Sunday school picnic—those were his analogies that he used on multiple occasions—and we say, No no, it’s going to be fine, because we don’t want to address that there could be any downside at all to withdrawal, I think we’re giving him a free pass.

I think we can instead say, [look at] all the costs—to Iraqis, to the region, to Afghanistan, to the military readiness, to U.S. national security—of staying, and address that head on, and then say the costs of leaving are unknowable. You, who predicted we’d have a cakewalk, are now to be trusted to tell us it’s going to be like Rwanda when we leave? How’s that? …

[Then we say], there are always risks, there are always consequences that are unknowable. Here’s what we’re going to do to address the concern. I think that’s a much more effective approach than to say, Oh , just because all the violence followed us into Iraq it’s going to follow us out of Iraq. I think it’s insulting to the American voter, the American people who know that certain things are unknowable. … That kind of belief that it’s all or nothing is in its own way analogous to the old one that was in this administration.

Beam goes on to wonder out loud what the significance is for Obama.  I don’t think that’s the biggest takeaway and I’m really not sure where he was going.  Rather, I think the takeaway is just how off the rails MoveOn can be at times as well as how quick they are willing to resort to tactics used by the Bush Administration (the principle source of their criticism…oh irony).

Matzzie’s suggestion to Power represents nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.  Certainly, I understand the politics involved.  And, I understand MoveOn’s desire not to feed into a narrative that is being used to pursue policy objectives that are completely antithetical to their own.  So, I am sympathetic to Matzzie’s (and presumbaly MoveOn’s) desire to shape the narrative in terms that are more favorable to them.  That said, it’s simply the wrong thing to do…

• First, they may not like to hear this, but the simple reality is that refusing to acknowledge the repercussions of withdrawal (and the corollorary of not even accepting the possibility/liklihood) is nothing short of what MoveOn consistently criticizes the Bush Administration for - misinformation.  The mere fact that MoveOn believes it is doing so to support “good” ends, does not excuse or justify misinformation or presenting incomplete information.
• Secondly, they may think that it is strategically smart to pursue that path and atempt to stifle people like Power, but they are wrong.  Whenever I give a lecture on effective public speaking, one of the first things I talk about is the need to accept the drawbacks of the position that you are advocating.  This is necessary and useful for a few reasons.  1) It helps establish your credibility with the audience.  If people know that you are willing to tell them the drawbacks to your position, then they are more likely to accept the benfits as true.  2) It also allows you to control/shape the discussion surrounding the weaknesses of your position.  Why let the person opposing you have the ability to discuss your drawbacks, when you can do it yourself and frame it in a way that supports your position.  Power’s response seems to acknowledge the necessity of paticipating in this kind of debate.  And, it is troubling to me, that MoveOn somehow thinks that its better to ignore reality or present misinformation in order to support their cause.  I’m unclear why people are supposed to accept their criticism when the Bush Administration does similar things, but people are supposed to support them when they do it.
• Third, it’s just another example of MoveOn simply contributing to the problem with our political discourse.  Yes, I understand that there are awful GOP groups out there and that the left needs the ability to fight back.  On the other hand, there’s no need to fight back with the same silly tactics.  In my opinion, reason will prevail, so long as it is being explained in an effective way.  MoveOn has made it clear that it is not interested in enhancing the political debate, but just serving as a counterbalance to silly right wing groups.  If that’s what they really want, then fine.  But, people need to stop taking them seriously then.  Just like people, including conservatives, should stop respecting/supporting silly right wing groups too.

I respect Power’s response.  Whether or not I agree with her positin is irrelevant.  What I do agree with and applaud is her ability to intellectually honest, even about the disadvantages of the position she supports.  A Democracy such as ours is predicated upon the fact that people vote with useful information in mind, not public relations tricks or misinformation.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s an obligation for any campaign or organization that advocates as position to be as honest as possible.  Afterall, if you’re advocating something, then it is assumed that you really believe that it is for the best.  Instead of trying to constantly trick people into siding with you, why not convince them?

So, in conclusion, shame on MoveOn and hooray for Power.

Sphere: Related Content

Maliki Backs Obama’s Iraq Plan, Then Claims He Doesn’t?

One risk of doing podcasts are that they can become quickly outdated. That happened today. In an interview with Der Speigel magazine, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki all but endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan:

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki supports US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s plan to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months. When asked in and interview with SPIEGEL when he thinks US troops should leave Iraq, Maliki responded “as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned.” He then continued: “US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

This was just after Maliki and President Bush had agreed on “time horizons” and Gen. Petraeus had said in an interview that withdrawal depended on facts on the ground, and would not consider a timeline.

Marc Ambinder laid out why this was a big deal:

This could be one of those unexpected events that forever changes the way the world perceives an issue. Iraq’s Prime Minister agrees with Obama, and there’s no wiggle room or fudge factor. This puts John McCain in an extremely precarious spot: what’s left to argue? to argue against Maliki would be to predicate that Iraqi sovereignty at this point means nothing. Obviously, our national interests aren’t equivalent to Iraq’s, but… Malik isn’t listening to the generals on the ground…but the “hasn’t been to Iraq” line doesn’t work here.

Later in the day, US Central Command (the office of General Petraeus) issued a “correction”:

Dr. Ali al-Dabbagh, a spokesman for the Iraqi government, issued a statement saying Mr. Maliki’s statement had been “as not conveyed accurately regarding the vision of Senator Barack Obama, U.S. presidential candidate, on the timeframe for U.S. forces withdrawal from Iraq,” but it did not address a specific error. It did soften his support for Mr. Obama’s plan and implied a more tentative approach to withdrawing troops.

Matt Yglesias underlines why the correction isn’t much of one:

… [T]he walkback (a) doesn’t involve Maliki on the record, (b) says the reports are inaccurate but doesn’t name inaccuracies, and (c) was issued through CENTCOM. Basically, this morning we saw Maliki speaking in person and endorsing Obama’s plan to end the occupation in no uncertain terms. By the late afternoon, an Iraqi government spokesman was pretending this never happened in a statement released by the occupying army. That’s hardly even a serious effort at bamboozlement.

The first serious response by McCain was essentially the campaigning scoffing that Obama had not supported the surge that was responsible for withdrawal being palatable:

“Let’s be clear, the only reason that the conversation about reducing troop levels in Iraq is happening is because John McCain challenged the failed Rumsfield-strategy in Iraq and argued for the surge strategy that is responsible for the successes we’ve achieved and which Barack Obama opposed. Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain has never ignored the facts on the ground in Iraq, he’s never avoided the warzone before proposing new strategy, and he’s never voted against funding our troops in the field. If John McCain was following Barack Obama’s lead on foreign policy, the United States would have already withdrawn from Iraq in a humiliating defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.” —Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008.

The second response of the McCain campaign emphasizing that Obama ignores shifting events on the ground:

“The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground. Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view, and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama. The fundamental truth remains that Senator McCain was right about the surge and Senator Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Senator Obama’s views had prevailed.”

This all comes a day after John McCain had started to use the phrase “succeeded” in regards to Iraq instead of “succeeding.” He crouched his words with caveats, but the shift in emphasis was clear:

“I’m happy to tell you we’ve succeeded in Iraq and we—unless we reverse the strategy that’s succeeding we will win this war. But it’s fragile and it must be dictated—the strategy must be dictated by the situation on the ground. Not some artificially, politically schedule for withdraw as sen Obama wants to do,” McCain told a crowd in Kansas City, MO.

Reporters questioned McCain on his rhetoric of success at a stop in Grand Haven, MI since in the past McCain has phrased the status in Iraq as “succeeding,” as opposed to “succeeded.”

McCain told reporters, “Military, economic, political, and all the benchmarks we said that the Iraqi government had to meet” have allowed for the word “succeeded” to be used.

However McCain admitted, “They haven’t met them all. Do they have a lot more to go– distance to go? Yes and it’s very fragile. And can be reversed. But they’ve succeeded and if we will continue this, we will win this war.”

Moreover, with Obama in Afghanistan and Iraq this weekend, this is about the perfect time for this story to break as far as the Obama campaign is concerned. Moreover, as Joe Klein points out, Maliki also rejected a permanent presence in the way that McCain had supported.

Where do things go from here? It seems that things in Iraq will either stay mostly as they are or get slightly better, or alternatively get much worse. If things stay close to how they are, Maliki will keep up local pressure for the Americans to leave. If things get worse, McCain may lose his leverage that the surge was the reason for things getting better.

McCain had for a while a strategic advantage on Iraq. Nouri al-Maliki ended that today.

It’s not that surprising that no one on the Corner has mentioned this yet. Until something else happens, there’s not really much to say. Redstate has two posts: one on the surge being the reason for any withdrawal, another trumpeting the “correction” press release without wondering what exactly the mistranslation was. Powerline has not mentioned it at all. The Weekly Standard hasn’t posted anything at all since the Der Spiegel article came out. Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall takes a stab: she argues that America should determine how long it takes to make Iraq secure and only then leave, no matter what Maliki says. The problem is that McCain has already said that Iraq should have a strong say:

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”

There’s no easy argument out of this for McCain. The two responses by his campaign today and the confused reaction from the conservative blogosphere makes this pretty clear.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (07/17/08)

In this podcast, we discuss the New Yorker cover cartoon about Barck Obama, June fundraising figures, Obama’s trip to the Europe and the Middle East, the 08 Bloggers Network and more…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

How Much Did Obama Change His Website On Iraq?

There was a big uproar after a NY Daily News article that Obama had scrubbed his website of criticism of the surge. Wired takes a look at the exact wording that was changed, and finds a more subtle change:

It’s not until halfway down the page that readers see that the Obama campaign changed its spin on President Bush’s policy of sending additional troops to Iraq to quell the violence.

The Friday, July 11, version of the page says: “at great cost, our troops have helped reduce violence in some areas of Iraq, but even those reductions do not get us below the unsustainable levels of violence of mid-2006.”

The Monday, July 14 version spidered by Versionista says: “Our troops have heroically helped reduce civilian casualties in Iraq to early 2006 levels. This is a testament to our military’s hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics, and enormous sacrifice by our troops and military families.”

In time-honored political tradition, Obama also revised that section of the site to use another statistic selectively to make his point. The section was changed to say that since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died.

But military statistics released last week show that violence in the form of attacks, and the number of US casualties in Iraq, are now at a four-year low. The attacks and casualties have plummeted from a peak in June 2007, according to those statistics.

…

But the side-by-side comparison published on McCain’s page on Tuesday shows a more complex picture.

If anything, the changes simply reflect that Obama is just another politician.

The question of Iraq, it strikes me, is a bigger one than it is implied here. At heart, Obama and McCain disagree on whether the war was worth fighting and is worth continuing to fight. The surge will continue to be a major talking point through the election, but I’m not sure this particular dispute gets to the heart of real debate over Iraq. And of course, the Obama campaign would probably point out that McCain is drawing nearer to Obama’s position on Afghanistan.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Press Call: Sen. Biden and Susan Rice Discuss Obama’s Plan for Iraq

[Obama Campaign Press Release/Conference Call from July 14, 2008]

TODAY: Obama Campaign to Hold Conference Call With Senator Biden and Susan Rice to Discuss Senator Obama’s Plan for Iraq

Chicago, IL– The Obama campaign will host a conference call today with Senator Joe Biden and Senior Foreign Policy Advisor Susan Rice to discuss Senator Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times today, in which he outlines his strategic plan for success in Iraq that puts the United States security first. His plan calls for a phased redeployment of our combat troops within 16 months, with a residual force to carry out discrete missions. This redeployment will allow the U.S. to properly address the growing threat from a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and will allow for sufficient pressure on the Iraqis that is necessary to achieve political reconciliation.

You can find Senator Obama’s op-ed in the New York Times HERE.

Monday, July 14th
12:30 PM ET//11:30 AM CT

[AUDIO]

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (07/03/08)

In this podcast we discuss (1) the shake up in the McCain Campaign, (2) Obama’s statement on revising his Iraq strategy, (3) Obama and his history with low income housing subsidies for private developers and (4) rumors about McCain’s VP announcement timetable…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (06/24/08)

John and Angelo are back and will be recording podcasts several times a week now.  This podcast covers (1) Obama’s ‘get over it’ statement and (2) McCain staffer Charles Black’s comments to Fortune Magazine regarding who would benefit from a terrorist attack.

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

The Worst Ad I’ve Ever Seen

OK, that’s a slight exaggeration. But it is mind numbingly bad. And I just had to sit through it watching Morning Joe.

John McCain has a strong interest in not limiting 527s. Democratic 527s may have a bunch of money, but they are famously incompetent in getting message across. The above ad is just unlikely to appeal to anyone that does not already share Moveon’s beliefs. Another example is the famous “Betray-us” ad that only gave conservatives a rallying point at a time when the Iraq war was really unpopular.

Moveon has absolutely no credibility outside of themselves. Perhaps some time they will learn to try to convince people. Guilt trips with babies will just get people to roll their eyes.

It says something that a parody of the ad is actually more effective in conveying a message than the ad itself.

h/t to Jason Zengerle

Sphere: Related Content

Morning Briefing (April 9, 2008)

What’s news today…

• Mark Penn’s new role is clarified.  Despite all the hullabaloo, it’s clear that Penn will not play as influential a role as he was or what many still think he will.
• Sizzle: TNR scolds Obama for dismissing Clinton and McCain’s foreign policy experience as well as for  using his personal experience living abroad as a child to buttress his foreign policy credentials.
• An excellent look inside McCain’s campaign.  Is this what a McCain administration will look like?
• In our last podcast, we discussed Obama’s reversal on public financing and its political implications.  Coincidentally, it seems that Obama is preparing his justification for not opting into the public finance system should he become the nominee by contending, “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.”
• Why?  Howard Dean criticizes McCain and calls him “not a strong candidate.”  Somewhat ironically, one of the reasons he suggested McCain is a weak candidate is because “he is out of touch with the American people.”  To me, it certainly seems out of touch to suggest that McCain is a weak candidate.  I recognize that as Chairman, Dean has to support his party, but it seems that recognizing reality is often the fastest way to earn credibility.  Recognizing McCain’s strength is not mutually exclusive with opposing him.
• Bill Clinton’s recent trip to Puerto Rico could have gone better.  A report: While Clinton was giving a speech, in English:Nobody interpreted, and only a handful of audience members seemed to understand him. The crowd — raucous and dancing a few minutes earlier — remained mostly silent during the 10-minute speech. Some people left. Others chatted on their cellphones. ‘What is he saying? Do we clap now?’ asked Jerry Nieves Rosario, a college student who speaks only Spanish.
• Inform yourself: This roundup of Iran nuclear related news is useful.
• Can we just stop with the ‘calls to Al Gore‘ for the time being?  Honestly, who throws a shoe?
• A Democratic debate on Science?  Maybe, it’s still very early in the planning stage.  I like the idea, that’s for sure.

 

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast). 

Sphere: Related Content

On Family Members Serving Overseas

Such a small story. Such wide disagreement.

The Hill reports that two of McCain’s sons may be serving in Iraq soon. One is serving there presently.

TPM reporter Eric Kleefeld thinks McCain’s sons being in Iraq will be used as a political weapon. Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard thinks Jim Webb already is using his son as a political weapon while McCain is refusing to do so, and finds Kleefeld indicative of liberals. Meanwhile, the Jim Geraghty of NRO says it means McCain means what he says on Iraq.

Well, I don’t doubt for a second McCain’s sincerity on Iraq; nor do I the sincerity of either Clinton or Iraq. Moreover, the politicizing of this by both sides (and the finger pointing blaming the other) is really annoying. Certainly some Democrats do not play up service of their children, and some Republicans do. For instance of the latter, see Duncan Hunter. I remember grousing about it in a live blog of a debate.

Of course, I’m the type who rolls their eyes when people yell for sons or daughters to enlist to justify a war. It’s a free country, and it has a voluntary army. The absolute worst argument I heard against Iraq was that Jenna and Laura should have to go for it to be justified. The logical conclusion is that if they did go, it would be justified. And that’s just a silly argument. Judging a war on whether a handful of relatives of politicians are participating seems like a sure fire way to engage in terrible foreign policy.

And more to the point, it just seems classless to brag about a relative serving or condemn a relative of a politician for not serving.

I hate to be so bold, but can we judge McCain on his own merits? And the same goes for Webb, if he is chosen as VP. And, for that matter, everyone else.

And can’t we all just recognize the courage of all of the soldiers in Iraq? I wish the media - old and new - had the sort of focus and dedication to the truth that they do. Bickering over partisan politics and electability is just petty.

Sphere: Related Content

Hear, hear: CJR Says Press Needs To Call Out Obama (And Democrats Generally) On Distortions Of McCain’s ‘100 Years In Iraq’ Remark

Back in January, at a Townhall meeting in New Hampshire, McCain said the following in response to a question (video here):

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — ” (cut off by McCain)

McCain: “Make it a hundred.”

Questioner: “Is that …” (cut off)

McCain: “We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …”

Questioner: [tries to say something]

McCain: “As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day. 

Politically, it wasn’t the greatest/smartest thing to say since it is ripe for distortion, but it’s still pretty clear that McCain is not calling for another 100 years of combat similar to the status quo.  Since the the exchange, McCain received a lot of flak.  Recently McCain was asked about the unfair characterizations of that statement and said:

“Life isn’t fair…As we know, all’s fair in politics.  But the fact is as everybody knows, and the media who follows me and spends a lot of time with me, I was talking about after the war is over.”

Regardless, everyone has gotten in on the criticism parade - Clinton, Obama and the DNC (along with plenty of Democrats).

From the Columbia Journalism Review:

But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.

It’s clear from this that McCain isn’t saying he’d support continuing the war for one hundred years, only that it might be necessary to keep troops there that long. That’s a very different thing. As he says, we’ve had troops in South Korea for over fifty years, but few people think that means we’re still fighting the Korean War.

Nevertheless, back in February, Obama said: “We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another hundred years.”

And, on a separate occasion: “(McCain) says that he is willing to send our troops into another hundred years of war in Iraq.”

I would add to CJR’s article that not just Obama, but Clinton and other Democrats need to be called out on their distortion of this remark.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that McCain or the GOP is free from distorting Democrats’ positions on this issue.  But, that really has no bearing on whether the Democrats are distorting McCain’s statement.  It’s unfair, it needs to stop. That’s all.

Related At 2008Central.net:

• For McCain Lessons From Vietnam Are Made, Not Learned (Apparently) (4/1/08)

 

Sphere: Related Content

For McCain Lessons From Vietnam Are Made, Not Learned (Apparently)

Salon’s Mark Benjamin has a great article up on McCain’s “lessons” from Vietnam that is definitely worth a read.  It begins by outlining McCain’s calculus for the use of force:

As a member of the House and Senate over the past quarter-century, McCain has used his own version of the Powell Doctrine to analyze national security issues and explain his decisions. For McCain, the lessons from Southeast Asia are clear. Prior to committing U.S. troops, carefully define the objective of an engagement, determine if the goal is achievable and is a vital national interest and weigh the potential cost. Should military action begin, commitment must be total, force should be overwhelming, and action must be seen through to its conclusion.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Afternoon Briefing (3/26/08)

Here’s a quick roundup of what’s news…

• PBS’s FRONTLINE documentary “Bush’s War” is now available online. It’s a 5 hour documentary about the Iraq War. I strongly suggest watching it at some point.
• There are all sorts of rumblings about the Clinton Campaign’s subversive plot to pursue Obama’s pledged delegates; one blogger recalls Harold Ickes doing something similar in 1980 when he was working for Kennedy. I really don’t think this will ultimately be much of a factor and share Josh Marshall’s characterization as this being a “fog of nonsense” intentionally created by the Clinton Campaign. It’s worth noting that the Obama Campaign is pushing this story, which means they see a political advantage in this story getting press.
• In Wright news: Hillary Clinton says that she would have left the church if Rev. Wright was her pastor on the same day that a member of her finance committee compared Wright to David Duke.
• Audio for yesterday’s campaign conference calls are available: McCain’s, Clinton’s, Obama’s.
• Barack Obama released his tax returns for 2000-2006 and as his campaign increases pressure on Bill and Hillary Clinton to release their tax returns.
• Excellent and worthwhile read on McCain’s view on taxes and current proposals/plans.

Sphere: Related Content

Joe Klein Gets It, But Doesn’t Seem to Care

Joe Klein writes today:

So we now have a pattern. Obama’s chief economic advisor (Austan Goolsbee) and a prominent foreign policy advisor (Power) have now told the truth on two important issues, trade and Iraq respectively. Their truth contradicted some of the overheated rhetoric their boss was using on the campaign trail. Hillary Clinton–whose actual positions on trade and Iraq are probably the same as Obama’s advisors–has attacked Obama in both cases for saying one thing and believing another…when she is doing the exact same thing.

You’d hope for something better in a crucial election year, but hey, this is politics. For what it’s worth, I score this contretemps slightly in Obama’s favor: At least his advisors know the truth about these issues and are impolitic enough to be honest about it.

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Thoughts on Clinton’s Iraq Speech

Hillary Clinton this morning gave a major speech on Iraq.

After the jump, significant breakdown and analysis.
Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Next Page »